Who knows the most about religion? You guessed it ...

bnt

A Pew Forum survey of people in the USA confirmed what many of us have experienced: atheists & agnostics really do more about religion than the religious. Hemant (the Friendly Atheist) has posted a nice summary of the results, here. The New York Times article puts it thus:

Those who scored the highest were atheists and agnostics, as well as two religious minorities: Jews and Mormons. The results were the same even after the researchers controlled for factors like age and racial differences.

“Even after all these other factors, including education, are taken into account, atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons still outperform all the other religious groups in our survey,” said Greg Smith, a senior researcher at Pew.

That finding might surprise some, but not Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, an advocacy group for nonbelievers that was founded by Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

“I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people,” Mr. Silverman said. “Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists.”

seamus

Yeah, wouldn't surprise me at all.

We were watching The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo* a couple of weeks back which in it mentions a couple of pretty horrific and mysognystic bible verses, such as Leviticus 20:16: "If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

After the 3rd or fourth such verse was mentioned, my wife says, "They can't be real bible verses, are they?".

If most people had any idea what was in that barbaric tome, they'd have abandoned it years ago.

*Awesome movie btw.

Oh and before any bible scholar points it out, I'm aware that the preceding verse prescribes the same treatment for men. That was just the easiest quote to find from the movie, which focusses on biblicial mysogyny mainly

Tim Robbins

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, wouldn't surprise me at all.

We were watching The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo* a couple of weeks back which in it mentions a couple of pretty horrific and mysognystic bible verses, such as Leviticus 20:16: "If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

After the 3rd or fourth such verse was mentioned, my wife says, "They can't be real bible verses, are they?".

If most people had any idea what was in that barbaric tome, they'd have abandoned it years ago.

*Awesome movie btw.

Oh and before any bible scholar points it out, I'm aware that the preceding verse prescribes the same treatment for men. That was just the easiest quote to find from the movie, which focusses on biblicial mysogyny mainly

Ha!
Reminds me of a time that my sister went off and got a Bible to think about names for naming her kid, only to get a shock how barbaric the bible actually is!

Dades

Interesting poll, and not really surprising. Ignorance is bliss, it seems.

Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists wrote:

“Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge...”

But... but... what about exegesis? :eek:

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ha!
Reminds me of a time that my sister went off and got a Bible to think about names for naming her kid, only to get a shock how barbaric the bible actually is!

Heh - my little fella is named after a biblical celebrity. Built a big boat he did.

legspin

Dades wrote: »

Heh - my little fella is named after a biblical celebrity. Built a big boat he did.

Two of mine are. A boy who was nearly sacrificed and Moses' father in law. I wanted to call the first one after the boy's brother (later survived a white whale) but my wife was having none of it.

Dades

legspin wrote: »

Two of mine are. A boy who was nearly sacrificed and Moses' father in law. I wanted to call the first one after the boy's brother (later survived a white whale) but my wife was having none of it.

Had to wiki one of them - far out ! The bible is a good source for something at least.

c_man

Not really surprised by that.

Ickle Magoo

One of mine is named after a character in a shakespeare play and the other is taken from irish mythology... :cool:

Edited to add: both lesser known characters...they are not Juliet and Finn!

Shenshen

I can't say I'm surprised.
Reading the bible is what turned me against the idea of worshipping god (given that "god" did in fact do and condone everything the bible says he did).

While I'm an agnostic on the subject of god's existence, I'm quite definitely not going to worship or revere him if he turns out to exist.

Shenshen

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

One of mine is named after a character in a shakespeare play and the other is taken from irish mythology... :cool:

Edited to add: both lesser known characters...they are not Juliet and Finn!

Horatio and Ceibhfhionn?

krudler

Its staggering how many supposed christians/catholics have never read the bible, you'd think that being its the foundation for their faith you'd, y'know, have an oul glance at the thing once or twice aside from when you're at your annual trip to mass.

krudler

Shenshen wrote: »

Horatio and Ceibhfhionn?

"yyyeeaaaahhhhhhhhh!" dun dun !

Ickle Magoo

Shenshen wrote: »

Horatio and Ceibhfhionn?

Eh, no. Horatio was a skeptic and would have been a good one tho...I don't even know how to pronounce the other one.

Canis Lupus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

One of mine is named after a character in a shakespeare play and the other is taken from irish mythology... :cool:

Edited to add: both lesser known characters...they are not Juliet and Finn!

Shylock and Brian Connors from the Leprechaun King?

Shenshen

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Eh, no. Horatio was a skeptic and would have been a good one tho...I don't even know how to pronounce the other one.

Neither do I, I have to admit... I googled, and picked the one with the most complicated spelling

Ickle Magoo

Shylock? Our bouncing 8lbs of flesh? No.

No, he might have been a Brian Cohen perhaps but never brian o'connor.

Canis Lupus

Well I give up then. This game is rubbish :P

Ickle Magoo

Think Finn McCool's relatives & As You Like It. That's it, I shall say no more. :pac:

Scarinae

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Think Finn McCool's relatives & As You Like It. That's it, I shall say no more. :pac:

Aw, and there I was hoping that you had a kid called MacDuff! I'm thinking Oisin for the other one

EDIT: As You Like It has a character called Hymen!

Ickle Magoo

Fishie wrote: »

Aw, and there I was hoping that you had a kid called MacDuff! I'm thinking Oisin for the other one

EDIT: As You Like It has a character called Hymen!

:eek: I hope it goes without saying that I wouldn't call my daughter hymen!

No, not Oisin either....though it was on our shortlist.

Anyone actually cares/wants to know can pm me otherwise this could go on indefinitely!

iguana

Dades wrote: »

Heh - my little fella is named after a biblical celebrity. Built a big boat he did.

Evan, right.:)

zimovain

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/religious-literacy-americ_n_741391.html

A new survey of Americans' knowledge of religion found that atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons outperformed Protestants and Roman Catholics in answering questions about major religions, while many respondents could not correctly give the most basic tenets of their own faiths.


Forty-five percent of Roman Catholics who participated in the study didn't know that, according to church teaching, the bread and wine used in Holy Communion is not just a symbol, but becomes the body and blood of Christ.
More than half of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the person who inspired the Protestant Reformation. And about four in 10 Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the greatest rabbis and intellectuals in history, was Jewish.


The survey released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life aimed to test a broad range of religious knowledge, including understanding of the Bible, core teachings of different faiths and major figures in religious history. The U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the developed world, especially compared to largely secular Western Europe, but faith leaders and educators have long lamented that Americans still know relatively little about religion.


Respondents to the survey were asked 32 questions with a range of difficulty, including whether they could name the Islamic holy book and the first book of the Bible, or say what century the Mormon religion was founded. On average, participants in the survey answered correctly overall for half of the survey questions.
Atheists and agnostics scored highest, with an average of 21 correct answers, while Jews and Mormons followed with about 20 accurate responses. Protestants overall averaged 16 correct answers, while Catholics followed with a score of about 15.
Not surprisingly, those who said they attended worship at least once a week and considered religion important in their lives often performed better on the overall survey. However, level of education was the best predictor of religious knowledge. The top-performing groups on the survey still came out ahead even when controlling for how much schooling they had completed.


On questions about Christianity, Mormons scored the highest, with an average of about eight correct answers out of 12, followed by white evangelicals, with an average of just over seven correct answers. Jews, along with atheists and agnostics, knew the most about other faiths, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. Less than half of Americans know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist, and less than four in 10 know that Vishnu and Shiva are part of Hinduism.


The study also found that many Americans don't understand constitutional restrictions on religion in public schools. While a majority know that public school teachers cannot lead classes in prayer, less than a quarter know that the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that teachers can read from the Bible as an example of literature.
Story continues below




"Many Americans think the constitutional restrictions on religion in public schools are tighter than they really are," Pew researchers wrote.
The survey of 3,412 people, conducted between May and June of this year, had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, while the margins of error for individual religious groups was higher.

oshead

I read this in the LA Times. Came here to post it and found I was beaten to the punch.

jayzusb.christ

A majority of Protestants, for instance, couldn't identify Martin Luther as the driving force behind the Protestant Reformation, according to the survey, released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Four in 10 Catholics misunderstood the meaning of their church's central ritual, incorrectly saying that the bread and wine used in Holy Communion are intended to merely symbolize the body and blood of Christ, not actually become them.

Sweet suffering jaypers. Unbelievable.

strobe

Shenshen wrote: »

Horatio and Ceibhfhionn?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Eh, no. Horatio was a skeptic and would have been a good one tho...I don't even know how to pronounce the other one.

Shenshen wrote: »

Neither do I, I have to admit... I googled, and picked the one with the most complicated spelling

Pronounced Kave-heon I think.

mikhail

strobe wrote: »

Pronounced Kave-heon I think.

Or Kevin, if you're not a twat.

Ickle Magoo

All that for Kevin?! :eek: :pac:

strobe

mikhail wrote: »

Or Kevin, if you're not a twat.

Is it an alternate spelling of Caoimhín?

Ehh in that case Ickle it would be pronounced "Quee-veen." I wasn't a million miles off.

Galvasean

ONLY 4 in ten Catholics wrongly thought the wine to blood thing was symbolic? From my experience, nearly all of them do.

The survey's finding is not surprising at all. The more you learn about religion the more daft it gets!

Fluffybums

krudler wrote: »

Its staggering how many supposed christians/catholics have never read the bible, you'd think that being its the foundation for their faith you'd, y'know, have an oul glance at the thing once or twice aside from when you're at your annual trip to mass.

Interesting comment considering a recent article in the Indy noted a study that found that children here spend more time studying religion than in most other country in Europe. I think it was three times as much as the average on religion and about half as much as the average on science. Excuse my ignorance as I was not taught in a secular state, but does that mean that RE here consists of the doctrine of the Church of Rome?

mikhail

Fluffybums wrote: »

...Excuse my ignorance as I was not taught in a secular state, but does that mean that RE here consists of the doctrine of the Church of Rome?

Most of us studied that kind of religion at school. In the past decade or so, it's started to become more enlightened, at least at secondary level.

Galvasean

Fluffybums wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance as I was not taught in a secular state, but does that mean that RE here consists of the doctrine of the Church of Rome?

Religion is taught here at an academic level in secondary school. However, it is more of a 'world religions' sort of course rather than a dogmatic one.

As for primary schools, it is up to the individual schools how they do it.

amacachi

Galvasean wrote: »

Religion is taught here at an academic level in secondary school. However, it is more of a 'world religions' sort of course rather than a dogmatic one.

As for primary schools, it is up to the individual schools how they do it.

Plenty of secondary schools still have Religious classes alongside the exam subject though. Luckily most teachers seem to just stick on some films instead. :pac:

ColmDawson

amacachi wrote: »

Luckily most teachers seem to just stick on some films instead. :pac:

But what about the children's spiritual development? :rolleyes:

Galvasean

When I was in secondary school they hadn't introduced religion as an academic subject. It depended on what teacher you had. Through the years I got everything from the evolution denying/showing us pro-life films from the 70s biddy right up to the 'religion lol' liberal.

amacachi

Galvasean wrote: »

When I was in secondary school they hadn't introduced religion as an academic subject. It depended on what teacher you had. Through the years I got everything from the evolution denying/showing us pro-life films from the 70s biddy right up to the 'religion lol' liberal.

Aye, there were some of the CD (non-exam Religion) who took it very seriously and those who didn't. Though I did get in **** once for complaining about the film she was putting on and asking if I could do homework. :pac:

iguana

amacachi wrote: »

Plenty of secondary schools still have Religious classes alongside the exam subject though. Luckily most teachers seem to just stick on some films instead. :pac:

When my religion teacher didn't feel like teaching us she used to play Charlie Lansborough's "My Forever Friend" on a loop for 40 minutes and tell us to think about the message. That happened several times a month.:(

krudler

iguana wrote: »

When my religion teacher didn't feel like teaching us she used to play Charlie Lansborough's "My Forever Friend" on a loop for 40 minutes and tell us to think about the message. That happened several times a month.:(

I'd rather be waterboarded, that bitch was sick for inflicting that on kids.

sponsoredwalk

seamus wrote: »

Leviticus 20:16: "If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

Ha! Pch, metaphor! :rolleyes: You obviously haven't read extremely obscure ancient
Hebrew apologetics interpretations of this particular verse where they
clearly, albeit in ancient Hebrew, explain that this is a metaphor :pac:

biko

Mind, this was a US survery, with what that entails , but I'd bet the number can account for Christians in many Western countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v3yTlVKL4

Edit, ah crap - sorry for not searching properly.

robindch

The Daily Mash investigates the survey:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/religious-belief-linked-to-being-a-bit-dim-201009293125/

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

The Daily Mash investigates the survey:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/religious-belief-linked-to-being-a-bit-dim-201009293125/

Harsh!

But funny :pac:

goose2005

I'd be surprised if even 1% of practising Catholics actually knew what the Mass is supposed to be.

A short Catechism of the Mass

By Father Godfrey Carney



Q. What is a sacrifice?
A. A sacrifice is the offering of a Victim to God by a priest to acknowledge that God is the Supreme Being, the Creator of all things.

Q. What is a Victim?
A. A Victim is the thing that is offered. Often in the Old Law (before Christ) it was an animal, killed, and its blood poured on the altar by the priest. The people who gave the animal were saying by this to God - "The animal represents us, it represents all creation. We give it to You to show that we give You ourselves, that we are Yours, that everything is Yours". In this act there is adoration, thanksgiving, pleading for forgiveness, pleading for help for soul and body. The Victim was often eaten afterwards in a ritual meal. These sacrifices were offered for many centuries in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Q. Did Christ abolish all that?
A. It is more true to say that He fulfilled all that. Those old Covenant acts were foreshadows of the new and everlasting Covenant. At the Jewish Passover Supper, before His passion began, He lifted all those sacrifices up into His own Sacrifice when He made the Mass.

Q. What is the Mass?
A. The Mass is the Sacrifice of Jesus on the cross offered up continually under appearances of bread and wine. It is the final perfect sacrifice.

Q. Are there a number of Rites of the Mass?
A. Yes, quite a number. In the Eastern Church - that means in Greece, Egypt, the Middle East, and further north - there are various rites of the Mass - the Greek rite, the Byzantine Rite, the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and others. In the Western Church (with few variations) - the Roman Rite.

Q. Why are they different?
A. They developed that way from the beginning of Christianity. Different places, slow travelling, slow communications, different languages. But the same Mass. The same essential act of worship.

Q. What is the essential act?
A. The essential act in the Mass is the redeeming Sacrifice of Jesus Christ which He offered once on the Cross of Calvary, and which He continues to offer through the priest at the altar under the appearances of bread and wine for the living and the dead.

Q. Do all rites look alike?
A. They don't look the same, but there is the same general structure in every rite, the same broad outline - the Offertory, the Consecration, and the Communion.

Q. What is the Offertory?
A. The Offertory is the first part of the Sacrifice proper. It is an integral part of the Mass. The priest offers the bread and wine to God the Father - the bread and wine that will be changed into Jesus' Body and Blood when the Consecration comes. Now, everyone present can give themselves in that act of offering. Jesus will transform those gifts at the Consecration. He will join us then, and we will join Him, and become one with Him in His great Redeeming Act.

Q. What is the Consecration?
A. The Consecration is the centre point, the climax, the very heart of the Mass. At that moment the bread and wine are changed in being, changed into Christ Himself, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. There is no change in colour or shape or touch or taste. All those "bread and wine" appearances remain the same. It is the inner essence - the substance - that changes, changes from being bread and wine into being the Body and Blood of Christ. This change is called transubstantiation.

Q. Do we see this change?
A. No. This is a hidden change, from one hidden thing into another hidden thing. The inner reality, the substance, of every material thing is always hidden from our senses, hidden from all experiment. Chemical analysis does not touch substance. The mind knows substance. The senses only contact the outward appearances, "the messages", that comes to the senses - colour, sound, taste, and so on. The change at the Consecration is a change of substance, and Christ is present in the way of substance.

Q. After the Consecration, what remains of the bread and wine?
A. Only the appearances, the "messages" to the senses, the external reactions. The substance, the real thing there, is Jesus Christ.

Q. How can Christ become so small?
A. Christ is there "substantially", that is, in the way in which substance is present in anything at all. Substance has nothing at all to do with size. A tiny crumb of bread, a tiny drop of wine, is just as truly bread, and as truly wine, as all the bread and wine in the world. We believe in this hidden change because the words of Christ Who is God Almighty, Who made the universe from nothing. We don't know how God did that, but He did it. We don't know how He does this, but by His words we know He does it.

Q. What words?
A. The words which Christ spoke over the bread and wine at the Last Supper the night before He was crucified. These words have some small variations in different Gospels and different rites, but the following is a summing of the words - "Take ye and eat. This is my Body given up for you. Drink of this. This is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the New and everlasting Covenant. It will be shed for you and for many, so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in remembrance of Me". If these words mean what they say, then that change of substance takes place. Christ clearly meant what He said.

Q. It's hard to believe, isn't it?
A. It is. The people who were there when Christ promised to do it found it hard. So hard that they walked away and left Him. And He didn't try to stop them and explain away the hard saying. He must have meant it. The gift of Faith helps us to believe.

Q. Christ could do it. But how can the priest do it?
A. By his own personal power, the priest, of course, cannot do it. But when he was ordained he was given a share in the mighty Priesthood of Christ. He was empowered to speak at the altar, in the Person, and character of Christ. Christ ordained the Apostles, and all priests, when He added at the Last Supper the words - "DO THIS, IN MEMORY OF ME". Christ commanded and thereby gave the power. Christ makes this great change, using the priest's voice and actions. Christ does it, through the priest.

Q. Apart from the change, what else happens?
A. Christ is really present. He is present in a posture of sacrifice, both Priest and Victim. "This is my Body given up for you. This is my Blood, shed for you". The Cross and the Mass and the Last Supper are one and the same action, done by the same person - Christ Our Lord.

Q. Does Christ die again in the Mass?
A. No. He died once on the Cross. He dies no more, but His act of loving self-surrender, His Act of Sacrifice for us, goes on at every Mass in a real living way. He is there really and truly, making Calvary present before us, and before every generation until the end of the world.

Q. Why the separate consecration of His Body and Blood?
A. His Body and Blood are not really separated. In His death on Calvary they were separated. But He rose to life. He lives. That is why it is not necessary to receive Him under both appearances. We receive the complete Christ under one appearance. The priest has to receive under both appearances in order to complete the sacrifice. But, in the separate consecration, we are given a vivid sign of death. The Mass reminds us of the Death of Christ for us. St. Paul puts it like this - "As often as you do this (that is, the Mass), you shall show forth the death of the Lord until He comes again".

Q. Does this add anything to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross?
A. No. It is the same sacrifice. It is not a repetition of Calvary. Christ is a Priest forever. He is a Victim forever. His priestly Act goes on forever. The Mass makes it present to us. The Mass applies its power to our souls.

Q. The Communion - what is that?
A. It is the last part of the Mass. The priest receives Our Lord, and gives Him to the people. Christ lives in us as Food, to strengthen our souls with His Divine Life, to be one with us in love, to unite us to Him and to each other. "Communion" means "Many united in One".

Q. What must we do to prepare to receive Him like this?
A. We must be baptised Catholics. We must be freed from mortal sin by a genuine Confession beforehand. We must be fasting for one hour. We must be in the right frame of mind - believing, hoping, loving, reverent, and humbly thankful for such a Wondrous Gift.

Q. About the language. Is Latin forbidden in the Mass at present?
A. Certainly not. The New Rite of Pope Paul VI was issued from Rome in Latin (1970). It can be said either in Latin or in the language of the country. The Second Vatican Council explicitly states that Latin must be preserved in the Mass.

Q. That is the Tridentine Mass?
A. That is a name given nowadays to the Old Rite of Latin Mass which developed in the Western Church (the Latin Church). That Ancient Rite was revised and ordered for all the Latin Church by Pope Pius V. He did this, following on the great reforming Council of Trent in the 16th century. The word "Tridentine" is from the Latin "Tridentinus", an adjectival word, descriptive, referring to the town of Trent in Northern Italy in which the Council was held - "The Tridentine Council".

Q. What was the Mass like before that?
A. In the beginning, very simple, in various languages. In Latin from about the fourth century, it grew up with variations in different parts of Europe. Gradually the order of Mass used in Rome at the Pope's Mass, spread and influences the rest of Europe. Pope Pius V trimmed it and unified it so that the Catholic anywhere in the Western world heard the same Latin sounds wherever he worshipped.

Q. What was the situation before the Fourth Century?
A. Latin was the language of the Roman Empire which covered all the Mediterranean lands and all Western Europe. But in the early centuries Greek was also spoken in the West. The Gospels and Epistles were written in Greek. Greek was used as the language of worship. The Mass in the West was in Greek in the very early centuries for a time. Gradually Latin took over. The 'Kyrie Eleison' - ('Lord have mercy') is part of a Greek Litany still in the Mass. There was never a sudden change. From very simple beginnings the Mass grew, variations coming and going, but a natural organic growth.

Q. So Roman influence prevailed?
A. Ultimately yes. Rome being the centre of the Church, and the Holy Apostolic See of Peter, had a unifying influence on the whole Church in Faith and Morals, but also in ways of worship. "The law of praying is the law of believing".

Q. Why Latin nowadays? A "dead" language?
A. Latin is old and beautiful and sacred and unchanging in meaning. It is a lovely heritage handed down to us. It safeguards the Holy of Holies from profanation and abuse. It makes for awe and reverence and mystery surrounding the Mystery of Faith. It unifies the whole Church. It makes us feel "at home" in all countries. It is a language sanctified by the holy use of centuries of Saints and Martyrs. It is a lovely veil that covers and yet enhances and radiates the Mystery of our Redemption. To throw it away is a great mistake.

Q. What is the Canon of the Mass?
A. "Canon" means something fixed, permanent, a rule. The Canon of the Mass is the central Eucharistic Prayer surrounding the Consecration itself.

Q. How old is the Canon?
A. The Canon is the oldest part of the Roman Mass. We have a description of it written by St. Ambrose in Milan in the 4th century. Its wording is very much the same as the Roman Canon is today. Obviously it was still old in St. Ambrose's day.

Q. Would you describe the Canon in the Mass today.
A. The Canon begins with the Preface, which is an introductory Prayer of thanksgiving and praise ending with the 'Sanctus', and angels' cry of praise in Heaven. Then the Canon itself leads up to the Consecration with beautiful pleadings through Christ to the Father, that He accept the sacrifice. We pray for the Church, the Pope, the Bishop, for all here present, for all the living. We unite ourselves with our Blessed Mother Mary and St. Joseph, and with all the apostles and Martyrs and all the Saints. The priest spreads his hands over the bread and wine, calling down the Holy Spirit of God and His power. Then he acts and speaks the words of Christ at the Last Supper, and the Great Change takes place and Christ is present and Christ's Sacrifice is present from then on.
The prayers continue, recalling His Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension, and offering this most Holy, Pure, Spotless Victim to the Eternal Father, asking Him to accept this offering. We pray for the Dead. We plead that we sinners may be allows, through God's mercy, to join the company of the Saints and Martyrs. All this we plead for through Christ Our Lord, and to finish the Canon the priest holds up Christ's Body and Blood in a gesture of sacrifice, saying: "Through Him, with Him, in Him, is given to You, God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen".

Q. What happens then?
A. Then the Communion begins at once with the Lord's own Prayer - the "Pater Noster" - the "Our Father".

Q. What happens before the Canon?
A. The Offertory. The priest offers the bread and wine to God, speaking of them already as sacred gifts, dedicated to the most sublime purpose of the sacrifice. Then he turns to the people and says, "Orate Fratres" - "Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Almighty Father". And for this the people pray also.

Q. Why does the say my sacrifice and yours? Why not our sacrifice?
A. We all share by Baptism in the priesthood of Christ. We all can, and should, offer ourselves as baptised members of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, giving our lives and activities to the Father with Christ, putting our lives into the Mass, and putting the Mass into our lives. That is the wonderful way in which we can become part of this sublime Act. But the priest at the altar has received another Sacrament - Holy Order. He is a minister of Christ. He has the power of acting in the person of Christ as he says the words of Consecration and so brings about the change, and the sacrifice is present. So the words "My sacrifice and yours" show that vital distinction. Without an ordained priest, there could be no Mass.

Q. What happens before the Offertory?
A. That is called the "Fore-Mass", or, the "Mass of Catechumens" or, "The Liturgy of the Word". It centres rounds the Bible. Two reads from the scriptures - the Epistle, read on the right hand side of the altar (the south side) and the Gospel, read on the left hand side (the north side).

Q. Why is the Book taken across after the Epistle to the other side of the altar?
A. One reason, the Gospel of Christ is read on the north side of the church with the priest facing towards the north, because in former times the north was considered to be the pagan area and not yet converted. Another is that it is a symbol of the changeover from the Old Testament to the New, from the Old Law to the New Law, from Moses to Christ, from the synagogue to the Catholic Church.

Q. What follows the Gospel?
A. On Sundays and Holydays, usually a sermon. Then the Nicene Creed just before the Offertory.

Q. Why was the first part (the reading and preaching) called the Mass of the Catechumens?
A. Because in the earlier centuries, the catechumens, that is, converts under instruction in the Faith, met for the Bible reading and preaching, and having responded with the creed, they were blessed and sent away. Only baptised Christians could stay on to join in the Sacrifice.

Q. Why does the priest kiss the altar and genuflect often and make the signs of the Cross over the host and chalice?
A. To show reverence for the place of sacrifice, for the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, to express the supreme holiness of this great act of worship. For the same reasons, the people kneel for Holy Communion and receive Our Lord on the tongue.

Q. Is the altar not also a table? Is the Mass not also a Holy Meal?
A. Yes. The Communion of the Mass is a Holy Meal coming from the Last Supper, a Sacred Banquet in which Christ is received, and from that aspect we can think of the altar as the table of the Lord. But the Mass is first and foremost, the sacrifice of the cross.

Q. Why doesn't the priest face the people in the Old Rite?
A. The priest and people face in the same direction. They face towards the East, where the Sun rises. Jesus is the Sun of Justice. He rose from the dead on Easter Morning as the Sun rose in the East. That has always been the way. Both priest and people faced God together. In fact, in the New Rite, there is no law which commands the priest to face the people. The Pope does not face the people when he says Mass in his private chapel in the Vatican.

Q. What about the Introit, the Gradual psalm, the Offertory Verse, and the Communion Verse?
A. These are psalms or part of psalms. They are often sung in Plain Chant at High Mass. They became shortened in time to one verse or two, with a repeated response called an 'antiphon'. The "Introit" ("he goes in") at the beginning of Mass was an entrance psalm sung as the priest went in procession to the altar in large churches. The "Gradual" - a psalm between the Epistle and the Gospel, was sung on the step below the Gospel platform. "Gradus" means "a step".

Q. What is said at the beginning of Mass at the foot of the altar steps?
A. Priest and servers say alternatively Psalm 42. It is most appropriate. One verse sets the tone for the whole Mass. This verse is set at the start of the psalm, repeated in its own proper place within the psalm itself, and again at the end of the psalm. This is the famous - "Intriobo ad altare Dei" - "I will go to the altar of God: to God who gives joy to my youth". Then before he mounts the altar, priest and people confess that they are sinners and ask for pardon by saying the 'Confiteor".

Q. Why is it called "Mass"?
A. This word "Mass" is from the Latin word "Missa". Before he gives the final blessing, the priest says to the people 'Ite, missa est' which means "Go, it is the dismissal" or "Go, you are sent". Somehow or other the word "Missa" became the short name for the whole great Action. A good reason for this is that the people are being told - "You have met Christ in His saving Sacrifice, you may have received Him into your souls. Now just as He said to His Apostles, "Go, teach all nations", so, you are now sent to take Christ with you to your homes, and wherever you go. You are sent on a mission. You are missionaries, apostles, of Christ.

Q. The Last Gospel. Why and what is it?
A. After he has given the final blessing, the priest goes to the north side again to read the Last Gospel. This actually is the start of the Gospel of St. John. It was once part of the thanksgiving after Mass. It reminds us as we read it, that the Eucharist is truly a continuation of the Incarnation itself. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . and the Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth".
The Mass contains the whole of the sublime Mystery of the Redemption. The ancient Latin Rite is a masterpiece to be cherished.

Q. This account of the Ancient Roman Rite is rather jumbled, it hops to and fro, doesn't it?
A. We want to give a portrait, not just a photograph of what the Mass means. Jesus is there, Himself. He is doing the Act, making the great Change, giving Himself in the act of the cross, and giving Himself to us in love. We must centre everything in the Consecration, the very heart of the matter. The Consecration is like the verb in the sentence. It gives life and meaning to all that goes before it, and to all that comes after it. The Mass grew outward from the Consecration.

Q. How can I guide myself through the Rite?
A. If you have a Missal, you can follow the Rite in sequence from the beginning to end in Latin and English. Here is an outline in four sections that may help you:-



(1) THE FORE MASS - THE LITURGY OF THE WORD

(We speak to God. God speaks to us [in Bible and Sermon]. We respond to Him with Faith [the Creed].)
At the foot of the altar steps - Psalm 42, 'Judica' - 'I will go to the altar of God'. The 'Confiteor' - act of penance. The priest goes up to the Book and reads the Entrance psalm - 'Introit' - comes to the centre, says the 'Kyrie Eleison' - 'Lord, have mercy'. Then the 'Gloria' - a hymn of praise - greets the people, reads the Prayer of the day - 'Oratio', reads the Epistle and the Gradual psalm. The Book is taken over to the Gospel side. The priest crosses and reads the Gospel. Then on a Sunday he may preach.

Then with the Creed the Fore Mass comes to an end.



THE LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST - THE SACRIFICE
OFFERTORY - CONSECRATION - COMMUNION

(We give ourselves with Christ to His Heavenly Father. Jesus gives Himself for us, and to us.)


(2) THE OFFERTORY

The priest holds up the bread to God and offers it with prayer. Then at the epistle side he takes from the server wine and water and puts them into the Chalice - symbol of the union of the Divine and Human Natures in Christ. The priest bows and humbly asks the Father to accept us. At the Epistle side the Server helps him wash his hands in purification, 'Lavabo'. Then in the centre he turns to the people asking them to pray that his sacrifice and theirs may be acceptable - 'Orate Fratres'. He then reads the 'Secret' (sacred), a prayer which sets aside these gifts for the sacred purpose of the Sacrifice.
And so the Offertory ends



(3) THE CONSECRATION (IN THE CANON)

After a short dialogue with the people, the priests reads the Preface ending with the 'Sanctus', and ushering in the Canon. The Canon prayers are whispered, and soon the warning bell brings us to the heart of the Mass, the vital words of Jesus Himself.


THE CONSECRATION

Bells ring as the priest adores, and holds up the Body and Blood of Christ to be seen and adored by the people. The prayers continue quietly. The priest breaks the silence with the words 'Nobis quoque peccatoribus' ('To us also, sinners'), a plea that we may be allowed by God's mercy to join the Saints and Martyrs. He finishes the Canon with the significant words 'Through Him, with Him, in Him, is given to You God the Almighty Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honour and glory' - then in a final signal of sacrifice he holds up the Body and blood of Christ together and then says, 'Per omnia saecula saeculorum' ('for ever and ever'). Amen.
And so ends the Canon.



(4) THE COMMUNION

This begins at once with Our Lord's own prayer - 'Pater Noster'. Then a prayer for liberation from evil, and for peace - 'pax Domini, sit semper vobiscum' he says, ('May the peace of the Lord be with you always'). Then he bends before the Lamb of God (Agnus Dei) asking Him for mercy and peace. Bending, he prays in preparation to receive Him. Three times striking his breast he says 'Domine non sum dignus' ('Lord, I am not worthy'). He receives reverently the Body and Blood of Our Lord, turns to the people with the Host raises in his hand and says, 'Ecce Agnus Dei' ('Behold the Lamb of God') and again three times 'Domine non sum dignus', and gives Holy Communion at the altar rails saying to each one 'May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep your soul unto life everlasting'. He returns to the altar, purifies the Chalice and his fingers with wine and water, reads the Communion verse and the Thanksgiving Prayer, tells the people, 'Ite Missa Est', ('Go, you are sent'), gives his blessing, reads the Last Gospel, and kneeling at the foot of the altar says in English the prayers added by Pope Leo XIII. These are for Russia, for the Church everywhere, and for all sinners.


END OF MASS

bnt

Dades wrote: »

But... but... what about exegesis? :eek:

Well, what about it? My understanding of the word is the sense used on Wikipedia i.e. a critical explanation of a text. It plays a major role in many religious traditions, such as Judaism (Talmud) and Islam (Hadiths) - but what does it mean to atheists?

It depends: exegesis based on facts from history or sociology: OK. Exegesis based primarily on other religious texts, with a priori assumptions on the validity of religious beliefs: not so much. I remember looking at Cardinal Lubac's book The Drama Of Atheist Humanism, which seemed to start off on reasonable scholarly level, looking at the world as it is, but by the end of the first chapter he'd assumed "there must be something more, specifically my Catholic beliefs". Then it went off the rails entirely, treating Dostoevsky's proclamations on faith as objective universal facts. :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill

Writer of a Chicago Tribune article thinks that wrong questions were asked in the survey, that Black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics would have gotten better score if asked Black Protestant- or Hispanic Catholic- centric questions and overall completely misses the point of the survey.

georgieporgy

goose2005 wrote: »

I'd be surprised if even 1% of practising Catholics actually knew what the Mass is supposed to be.

I think it's more like 1% of non practising catholics know what the Mass is.

sponsoredwalk

bnt wrote: »

Then it went off the rails entirely, treating Dostoevsky's proclamations on faith as objective universal facts. :rolleyes:

But, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." It logically follows Dostoevsky must be correct :rolleyes:

Apparently a lot is permitted with god if you read that link :cool:

bnt

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

But, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." It logically follows Dostoevsky must be correct :rolleyes:

Apparently a lot is permitted with god if you read that link :cool:

Well, if we assume that Dostoevsky speaks through his characters, then I have to wonder why Cardinal Lubac didn't pick up on this bit, from The Idiot:

Roman Catholicism is even worse than Atheism itself, in my opinion! Yes, that's my opinion! Atheism only preaches a negation, but Catholicism goes further: it preaches a distorted Christ, a Christ calumniated and defamed by themselves, the opposite of Christ! It preaches the Antichrist, I declare it does, I assure you it does! This is the conviction I have long held, and it has distressed me, myself... Roman Catholicism cannot hold its position without universal political supremacy, and cries: 'Non possumus!' To my thinking Roman Catholicism is not even a religion, but simply the continuation of the Western Roman Empire, and everything in it is subordinated to that idea, faith to begin with. The Pope seized the earth, an earthly throne, and grasped the sword; everything has gone on in the same way since, only they have added to the sword lying, fraud, deceit, fanaticism, superstition, villainy. They have trifled with the most holy, truthful, sincere, fervent feelings of the people; they have bartered it all, all for money, for base earthly power. And isn't that the teaching of Antichrist? How could Atheism fail to come from them? Atheism has sprung from Roman Catholicism itself. It originated with them themselves. Can they have believed themselves? It has been strengthened by revulsion from them; it is begotten by their lying and their spiritual impotence! Atheism! Among us it is only the exceptional classes who don't believe, those who, as Yevgeny Pavlovitch splendidly expressed it the other day, have lost their roots. But over there, in Europe, a terrible mass of the people themselves are beginning to lose their faith — at first from darkness and lying, and now from fanaticism and hatred of the church and Christianity.

Perhaps Dostoevsky's characters didn't necessarily represent Dostoevsky's views? Not much of an exegesis in that.

Galvasean

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Writer of a Chicago Tribune article thinks that wrong questions were asked in the survey, that Black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics would have gotten better score if asked Black Protestant- or Hispanic Catholic- centric questions and overall completely misses the point of the survey.

What kind of questions would be asked?

What kind of hair did Jesus have?

a) long and wavy
b) none
c) 'fro

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

ONLY 4 in ten Catholics wrongly thought the wine to blood thing was symbolic? From my experience, nearly all of them do.

!!An atheist is secretly doubting the survey!!! They know it's a lie but they won't admit it !! But now we have proof!! !!

Mark Hamill

Galvasean wrote: »

What kind of questions would be asked?

What kind of hair did Jesus have?

a) long and wavy
b) none
c) 'fro

He actually gives examples:

1. How is Thomas A. Dorsey most often remembered by cultural historians?

2. What do the initials in the A.M.E. Church stand for?

3. What is America's largest black religious denomination?

4. What do these "Negro spirituals" have in common: "Steal Away," "Wade in the Water" and "Follow the Drinking Gourd."

ANSWERS:

1.The father of gospel music.

2.African Methodist Episcopal.

3.The National Baptist Convention, USA Inc.

4.Their lyrics provided coded escape instructions for slaves in the South. (The "drinking gourd" is the constellation that contains the North Star.)